TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (2) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound on which the appellant's election has been set aside. 2. Respondent No. 1 stated in paragraph 6 of his election petition : (iv) That after the date of withdrawal the respondent No. 1 himself and through his aforesaid agents and workers with his consent was vehemently trying to induce the respondent No. 3 to support the candidature of the respondent No. 1, and declare that the electors, should not vote for the respondent No. 3, but should vote for the respondent No. 1. (v) That the respondent No. 1, and his aforesaid agents and workers having failed in their attempt in inducing the respondent No. 3 from either standing withdrawing or declaring to support the candidature of the respondent No. 1, and the respondent No. 3, having started his election campaign in full swing. The respondent No. 1 apprehended that if respondent No. 3, remains in contest then, he had no chance of success. Therefore he made determined efforts, to see that the respondent No. 3 makes an appeal to the electors of the constituency to the effect that the electors should vote for the respondent No. 1 and should refrain from voting in favour of the respondent No. 3, and withdraws from the contest.... ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings in the Election Petition as also on the findings of fact recorded by the High Court it has gone wrong in law in holding that the appellant was guilty of having indulged in corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(1)(a)(b) of the Act. He reserved his right to assail the findings by taking us through the evidence in case his contention in law were not found to be sound. Mr. S. S. Khanduja combated the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant and relied upon a decision of this Court in Abdul Hussain Mir v. Shamsul Huda and Anr. [1975]3SCR106 decided on 20th December 1974 to which one of us (A. Alagiriswami, J) was party. Mr. S. K. Ghambir appearing for respondent No. 3 asked us, in the event of the appellant's success in the appeal to exonerate the said respondent of the charge of having indulged in a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(1)(B)(b) of the Act as found by the High Court. Since the point of law urged on behalf of the appellant was found to be sound, we did not proceed to examine the evidence in the case. 5. We may state in condensed form the findings recorded by the High Court against the appellant in the background of what was ple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e from sub-Clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause (A) that post-facto payment of any gratification as a reward will be bribery only if it is paid to the person or the elector mentioned in these sub-clauses. But does it lead to the conclusion that payment of any gratification to any person other than an elector in all circumstances would be deemed to be with the object of indirectly inducing an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election ? If money is paid to an elector to vote for a particular candidate undoubtedly it is a direct inducement to him to vote at an election. If money is paid to a third person in which payment of money an elector has got any direct or indirect interest and which induces him to vote at an election in favour of a particular candidate then also the inducement is brought about as a result of the payment of the gratification. But the point of difficulty may arise where any gratification is paid by or on behalf of a candidate to a third person for procuring some votes of some electors who may be under his (third person's) influence. Whether in such a case the payment has got any indirect inducement to an elector to vote at an election ? We are inclined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh and Ors. [1968]3SCR102 followed in Om Prabha Jain v. Abnash Chand and Anr. [1968]3SCR111 -another decision in the same volume at page 111, it was pointed out by Hidayatullah J., as he then was, at page 110 "The money was not distributed among the voters directly but was given to Panchayats and the public at large. It was to be used for the good of those for and those against the candidate. No doubt they had the effect of pushing forward his claims but that was inevitable even if no money was spent, but good administration changed the people's condition. We cannot, therefore, hold that there was any corrupt practice. If there was good evidence that the Minister bargained directly or indirectly for votes, the result might have been different but there was no such evidence." It would thus be noticed that there must be a bargain for votes either directly with the voters or indirectly through some-one else. The voter may not be a direct party in the bargain but must be shown to have an indirect interest, in it. 10. In Abdul Hussain Mir v. Shamsul Huda and Anr.: [1975]3SCR106 Krishna Iyer J. in his judgment delivered on his and on behalf of Sarkaria J. did not find the ....